Sales of Chinese products off the GSA Schedule has resulted in a $2.3 million False Claims Act settlement.

According to a Department of Justice press release, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. has agreed to the settlement to resolve allegations that Samsung informed GSA Schedule resellers that certain products were manufactured in “designated countries” under the Trade Agreements Act, when in fact those products were manufactured in China.

GSA Schedule contracts require that vendors certify that their products comply with the Trade Agreements Act. The TAA, in turn, generally requires that the government buy products manufactured in the United States or in a “designated country” with which the United States has a trade agreement. Many countries are designated countries under the TAA, but China is not a designated country.

Samsung has designated resellers who hold GSA Schedule contracts. Samsung certifies to its resellers that its products are TAA compliant, and those resellers then offer the products for sale off their Schedule contracts.

The General Services Administration has figured out a way not to have to temporarily close down its services schedules to new offerors after all.

After Federal News Radio reported the Federal Acquisition Service’s plans to suspend the services schedules to new vendors while it put the pieces in place to give the program a facelift, Tiffany Hixson, FAS’s professional services category executive, said her team has now figured out a way to run both the current schedules and the new consolidated schedule at the same time.

“Since the last time we talked, my team really has been looking at the challenge of closing the schedules even for a short period of time. Industry had quite a few concerns with that part of our acquisition strategy,” Hixson said in a follow-up interview Thursday. “So what we decided to do is open the new professional services schedule at the same time that we are going to be transitioning our existing schedules to our new contract environment. So instead of working our process in serial fashion, we are going to be doing that in parallel fashion and that takes care of the problem. So we do not have to close the schedules, which is a big win for us and also for industry.”

The General Services Administration (GSA) wants to make it easier for agencies to buy professional, management, technology and a host of other kinds of services from the schedule contracts. To that end, GSA will consolidate seven different professional services contracts into what could end up being one mega- schedule.

Tiffany Hixson, GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service’s professional services category executive, said the goal is to consolidate the schedules of as many as 500 vendors by November 2015.

“We are really hoping that will make it much easier for federal contracting officers to get those services, in particular where we have a requirement that covers a number of services areas. So instead of having to compete those services across a number of schedules, they will just be able to go to one,” Hixson said in an exclusive interview with Federal News Radio. “We think that will make it a lot more user friendly from a contracting officer perspective. Additionally, we will be able to reduce our administrative overhead, and for our contractors, it will reduce the cost of administering the number of schedules that we’ve got in the professional services area.”

The General Services Administration’s effort to add cloud services to its huge multiple-award Schedule 70 IT contract might give it some leverage over competing government contracting vehicles and a leg up on advancing technology.

Mary Davie, assistant commissioner of GSA’s Office of Integrated Technology Services, wrote in a blog post last week that agency leaders are thinking about creating a single special item number (SIN) for cloud services on its IT Schedule 70 governmentwide acquisition contract — the largest, most widely used IT acquisition vehicle in the federal government.

GSA’s request for information issued in early July said commercial cloud computing services were currently being sold through several SINs on Schedule 70.

When a small business submits an offer for a Blanket Purchase Agreement issued against a GSA Schedule contract, the offeror does not automatically recertify its size. Rather, a new regulation effective December 31, 2013 provides that an offeror’s size status for a BPA issued against a GSA Schedule ordinarily is determined by looking to the offeror’s self-certification for the underlying GSA Schedule contract.

In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals relied, in part, on the new regulation to find that an offeror had not recertified its small business status by submitting a quotation for a BPA to be issued against the offeror’s GSA Schedule contract.

SBA OHA’s decision in Size Appeal of Total Systems Technologies Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5562 (2014) involved a Homeland Security RFQ for business management support at the Coast Guard’s C4IT Service Center. The Coast Guard issued the RFQ under the MOBIS Schedule 874, and stated that the RFQ would result in the award of a single BPA. The RFQ was set aside for HUBZone firms.

In a crushing blow to SDVOSBs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has denied the appeal of a lower court decision allowing the VA to procure goods and services using the Federal Supply Schedule without first considering whether SDVOSBs can satisfy the requirement.

Rejecting well-stated objections by a dissenting judge, a two-judge majority held that the purpose of the “Veterans First” rule is to ensure that the VA meets its SDVOSB goals, and that so long as the VA meets its SDVOS goals, it is free to procure services and supplies from the Federal Supply Schedule without first considering a SDVOSB procurement.

The Court’s decision in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. vs. United States, No. 2013-5042 (2014) is the latest (and possibly last) in a long-running battle between SDVOSBs and the VA over the SDVOSB preferences adopted by Congress as part of the Veterans Benefits, Health Care and Information Technology Act of 2006. Because it has been awhile since the last decision in this battle, I have summarized the relevant history before diving into the particulars of the Federal Circuit’s decision.

Georgia Tech’s innovative GSA Schedule Proposal Preparation Workshop provides businesses with the ability to complete – in as little as two days – a proposal to obtain a GSA Schedule contract.

The schedule and registration details for the next workshops can be found by clicking here.

The federal General Services Administration (GSA) awards about $50 billion in blanket contracts known as “Schedules” to hundreds of companies each year. The process to win one of these contracts begins with a proposal, an arduous task that typically takes several months to prepare. Now, thanks to Georgia Tech’s workshop, a GSA proposal can be actually completed at the Workshop. If a business is not prepared to submit all the documentation at the time of the workshop,the GSA proposal preparation process easily can be shortened to within 30 days following the Workshop.

The two-day Workshop is conducted by The Contracting Education Academy at Georgia Tech, and registration details may be found here.

All attendees at recent Workshops agree that the experience met or exceeded their expectations. Here’s what participants had to say at the last workshop held in Atlanta in May:

“I received exactly what we expected – a step by step process to quickly and efficiently submit our GSA Schedule.”

“I valued [the instructor’s] passion and expertise for this process. I received valuable information and instruction regarding Schedule preparation, including templates and a student workbook.”

“I look forward to having a chance to do more with The Contracting Education Academy in the future. The GSA Seminar was very beneficial and time well spent. Thank You!”

“I valued the format, the knowledge of the instructor, the delivery, the materials, and the ROI.”

“Excellent detail in instruction and structure for the session. I valued the time to actually work on my proposal sections.”

“I got exactly what I expected – to leave with confidence that we could completely submit our GSA Schedule proposal with a high degree of likely success.”

“I valued the time to complete sections of our GSA Schedule during class.”

“I received a comprehensive understanding of the GSA process. The binder and resource materials have been very helpful.”

“[The instructor] was able to answer all questions immediately! The templates provided are wonderful.”

The Workshop is conducted by experienced government contracting professionals who have helped many business people successfully land GSA Schedule contracts. Real world business scenarios are presented during this instructional session, tackling all the difficult and confusing aspects of the proposal process.

As an added bonus, The Academy provides Workshop attendees with four hours of time with instructional personnel – after the Workshop – to answer any remaining questions, review proposal packages, and provide follow-on consulting.

In Atlanta, the Workshop is held on Georgia Tech’s midtown campus. Registration details for the next workshop can be found here.

GSA has announced GSA Schedule Mass Modification number A382 relating to Manufacturer Part Numbers on Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Price Lists. This Mass Modification is mandatory for both product and service providers.

On June 17, 2014, GSA began sending out the Mass Mod for Manufacturer Part Number to all applicable contractors. The purpose of this modification is to reinforce the requirements of clause I-FSS-600 Contract Price Lists (Oct 2013) and clause 552.238-71, Submission and Distribution of Authorized FSS Schedule Price Lists.

Per these clauses, the contractor’s price list must be complete and include all services, prices, and terms and conditions that were accepted by the Government at award and the complete price list must be uploaded to GSA Advantage!™ including the Manufacturer Part Number.

In this modification GSA is explicitly stating and reinforcing that all Government-accepted products, fixed-price services and/or ancillary products that have been awarded must be included in the price list, and that the product descriptive data must include the Manufacturer Part Number. The complete price list must be uploaded to GSA Advantage!™ per clause 552.238-71, Submission and Distribution of Authorized FSS Schedule Price Lists.

The Government is now treating the Manufacturer Part Number as a critical part of the descriptive product data included in the price list.

A Manufacturer Part Number is considered to be a unique number or code created by the manufacturer of a specific product, and assigned as a means of standardized product identification. Vendors are cautioned not to alter the Manufacturer Part Numbers. There should be no additions, deletions, or other discrepancies between the Manufacturer Part Number as submitted to the vendor by the manufacturer, and as presented by the contract holder to GSA. For example, vendors should not add their own prefixes or suffixes to any Manufacturer Part Number.

GSA Schedule contractors are to submit all responses, including all product data, within 90 days of the date of issue of the contract modification received from GSA. Failure to comply with the terms of the modification may result in contract cancellation.

Upon receipt of the contract mod, contractors should go to https://vsc.gsa.gov and accept the modification. Contractors then must access SIP or EDI and upload all products, fixed price services, and ancillary products with all required descriptive data including Manufacturer Part Numbers.

GSA’s Answers to Frequently-Asked Questions:

1: Is this mass modification mandatory?

A: Yes. This mod is mandatory to ensure GSA is capturing all the Manufacturer Part Numbers and all other descriptive data for all Products award on the GSA MAS contract, including Ancillary Products fixed-price services (i.e., training course).

2: I have a service-only contract, and have no fixed-price services or ancillary products. How do I respond?

A: Although the reinforcement is not applicable to your contract, select “Yes” to acknowledge the requirement on the Vendor Support Center website.

3: Do I need to submit all my products?

A: Yes. Any product, ancillary product, or fixed-price service that you have listed on your MAS contract should be submitted, along with its corresponding product data.

4: Does this rule apply to previous submissions?

A: Yes. Industry partners should take this opportunity to revisit previous submissions and correct or refine any missing or altered manufacturer part numbers.

5: What should I do if I do not have (or can not obtain) the Manufacturers Part Number?

A: Industry partners should make a best effort to obtain accurate product information.

6: Why is GSA asking for Manufacturer Part Numbers?

A: GSA is focusing on bolstering data driven offerings in order to improve the acquisition experience for customers, acquisition officials, and industry partners alike. Expanded data repositories pave the way for streamlined, value-added functionality that will minimize effort while maximizing returns.

The General Services Administration (GSA) plans to more than double its market share of government spending by crafting a new digital ecosystem of contract offerings and interactive purchasing tools.

Tom Sharpe, the commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, told Federal Times the agency plans to boost its market share from 14 to 33 percent by the end of fiscal year 2016. Reduced budgets at agency procurement shops means now is the time for GSA to show what it can do for agencies, he added.

“I would argue the Federal Acquisition Service at GSA should be a centralized buyer — and we are going to make that case and we are going to fight for that,” Sharpe said.

GSA is already rolling out the cornerstone of that case, calling it “The Government Acquisition Marketplace.” The agency is billing it as a one-stop digital shop for government acquisition and the next stage in an acquisition landscape that requires data-driven solutions.

A new procurement ombudsman aims to close the communications gap between the General Services Administration (GSA) and its vendors.

The ombudsman, Millisa Gary, is one of several ways GSA is trying to be more responsive to its government and industry customers.

“Her role is to indeed be a voice for industry, make sure we are hearing their concerns and helping an industry partner in navigating our bureaucracy,” said Jeff Koses, GSA’s senior procurement executive, in an exclusive interview with Federal News Radio. “Not necessarily to resolve the issue but to get them a fair hearing and to get them in front of the right audience. Often as we are pursuing best value and pursuing savings, the value of industry conversations can’t be overstated.”

Koses, who took over as senior procurement executive in January after spending the last six years as the director of acquisition operations for the General Supplies and Services portfolio at GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, is making changes such as naming an ombudsman part of the agency’s key initiatives to improve supplier and customer relations.